"...i generally find dumbasses enjoyable. and wiping the floor with fucktards as yourself, as a little joy that makes me smile." - Good luck with that, so far you're still only trying.

"english, highest in my grade, three years running. finished matric with a in matric. currently writing a book. knows what words mean." - funny, because you speak it like a native. Odd that you can't get that I never brought "my business" onto your forum in the first place. (See earlier comment referring to where I was answering questions after clarifying that I was no longer a Christian, thank you.)

"...i just prefer being called a bitch." - Bitch. Was that good for you?

Ah now we're on shaky ground. Is my invisible friend not as good as Joe Christian's invisible friend? How is one religions or belief more "real" or "provable" than another? A religion is no more real than another because it is older, or has more books or followers or even because it has spilled more blood than another.

Address the point, please. I was talking about a general principle, not attempting to compare the validity of one set of unfounded (and very probably false) beliefs with that of another. That general principle is the readiness that some people exhibit – and I repeat myself here – for buying into, as some kind of truth, such largely evidence-free feel-good notions mainly because they provide thrills of various kinds, not least among which are pretensions to profundity, before going on with a singular ability and slippery inventiveness for avoiding the strong likelihood that such beliefs are baloney. The above is a clear case in point of said facility for slippery subversions: That other people hold invalid beliefs different from yours lends absolutely no support to yours. Raising it is pure evasion, and transparently so. Still, if you feel you must at any cost have the last word on this, just say so.

From wikipedia.com - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism.....Agnosticism often overlaps with other belief systems. Agnostic theists identify themselves both as agnostics and as followers of particular religions....By all means, pounce away

The same page also says:

Quote

Agnostic (Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876[9] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

That was the original usage, You do not. We can quote mine all day but we'll get nowhere, the above is what I understand, and understood agnosticism to be, when I was agnostic. In my mind most people don't think "agnostic theist" when they hear the word agnostic, I won't blame you now for not qualifying, but in absence of the qualification that you're a wicca, I wouldn't go around calling myself agnostic without tacking on the "theist" part if I were you.

An example is the guy sitting next to me this very moment, who describes himself as agnostic and denies any supernatural knowledge, but thinks it's possible, but unknowable. Debates about weak vs strong vs iMadeThisUp agnosticism/atheism/etc. generally go nowhere and now I regret bringing it up.